Warrantless wiretaps? Congress votes yes

Secret surveillance courts will live on in 2013, and beyond.

US Senators from both parties overwhelmingly approved a bill this morning that will authorize warrantless wiretaps, throughout 2013 and for four years beyond that.

Supporters of the bill, including Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), insisted it should be passed without amendment, in order to avoid having it sent back to the House of Representatives for approval. The current authorization for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts would have expired on Jan. 1.

But FISA was re-authorized this morning, by a vote of 73-23, after an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) was shot down. Of the 23 opponents, 20 were Democrats and 3 were Republicans.

Wyden's amendment would have applied a bare modicum of transparency to the FISA Amendments Act, which allows the government to intercept international communications of Americans without a warrant. The defeated amendment would have required reports to Congress about whether any wholly domestic communications were picked up by NSA wiretapping.

It follows the consideration of three sensible amendments yesterday which also would have limited the impact of the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required warrants for tapping into e-mail; Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) wanted Americans to at least be able to read the opinions of the FISA court, which are currently secret; and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wanted the FISA courts to be approved for just three years, rather than five. All of those amendments were defeated, as well.

"I know where this goes," Feinstein said yesterday, describing the Wyden amendment. "Where it goes is to destroy the program." She also raised the spectre of more terrorist attacks in justifying the program. "There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks," Feinstein said. "I don't share that view."

Go figure. Governments don't give up power; that's why they're not supposed to get it in the first place.

And who the shit keeps voting for Feinstein? Her voting record looks like an autocrat's wishlist. (Excepting gay marriage, which a cynical-tin-foil part of me says is so that they have to register like het couples, and can thus be tracked.)

"I know where this goes," Feinstein said yesterday, describing the Wyden amendment. "Where it goes is to destroy the program." She also raised the spectre of more terrorist attacks in justifying the program. "There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks," Feinstein said. "I don't share that view."

"I know where this goes," Feinstein said yesterday, describing the Wyden amendment. "Where it goes is to destroy the program." She also raised the spectre of more terrorist attacks in justifying the program. "There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks," Feinstein said. "I don't share that view."

No one is saying that you can't intercept international communications you nit. All we are saying is that you have to do it in a way that doesn't shit all over the constitution.

Glad both parties can work together to agree that our fundamental rights aren't really that important after all. Feinstein knows what's best for us, both to protect us from terrorists and to protect our children from guns (namely barrel shrouds and grips).

Now that FISA has been reauthorized, why can't Wyden (and others) introduce bills to amend it?

I think Senator Feinstein was worried about missing the deadline to reauthorize the statute if the bill were amended and thus sent back to the House for further debate. Now that FISA is reauthorized, they can take their time debating amendments to the law.

Now that FISA has been reauthorized, why can't Wyden (and others) introduce bills to amend it?

I think Senator Feinstein was worried about missing the deadline to reauthorize the statute if the bill were amended and thus sent back to the House for further debate. Now that FISA is reauthorized, they can take their time debating amendments to the law.

What am I missing?

No, she's a soulless authoritarian. She'd vote against that amendment because she wants the government to control your life.

Now that FISA has been reauthorized, why can't Wyden (and others) introduce bills to amend it?

I think Senator Feinstein was worried about missing the deadline to reauthorize the statute if the bill were amended and thus sent back to the House for further debate. Now that FISA is reauthorized, they can take their time debating amendments to the law.

What am I missing?

No, she's a soulless authoritarian. She'd vote against that amendment because she wants the government to control your life.

If by "government to control your life" you mean "sweet kickbacks from the defense companies in which she's heavily invested", then, duh.

The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.”

Let's see, we have threats of violence

Quote:

"There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks," Feinstein said. "I don't share that view."

Now that FISA has been reauthorized, why can't Wyden (and others) introduce bills to amend it?

I think Senator Feinstein was worried about missing the deadline to reauthorize the statute if the bill were amended and thus sent back to the House for further debate. Now that FISA is reauthorized, they can take their time debating amendments to the law.

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that further attempts to change an already authorized FISA will never even get a reading. Congress critters have already gotten what they want w/the law reauthorized and have zero incentive to revisit it solely for the purpose of giving up what they got. The whole point of pushing it as an amendment on the reauthorization is to say "no, you can't have it this way anymore. You can either have a changed version or no version at all." That is the only way to muster the necessary political will to get something like this pushed through.

Apocryphal Reporter: "Senator Feinstein, what is your favorite political quote?"Apocryphal Feinstein: "Without any doubt Lincoln's 'You can fool people all of the time' "AR: "...errr... Senator... that's not exactly what Lincoln said"AF: "Well, he might not have used exactly the same words but that's what he meant"AR: "Yes Senator. Whatever you say Senator". AF (to herself) "Damn smartass communist reporters. They should be all locked up"

What part of this process is "warrantless?" Officials still have to get a warrant from the FISC. The amendments being proposed didn't seek to stop surveillance, or to even hinder them at ALL. The amendments sought only to provide some additional transparency.

This article's title is grossly misleading -- if they'd voted against the extension and sought to amend it first, no part of the actual surveillance processes would have actually changed. This wasn't "vote yes if you love warrantless wiretapping, or vote no if you hate it."

"There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks," Feinstein said. "I don't share that view."

But what good does that fear do? What does it accomplish for the American people? I'm OK with the concept giving up some privacy if I get something in return for it. But, as far as I'm aware, no Congressperson or the TSA has ever demonstrated that diminished privacy and increased public harassment (at airports) gains us anything.

It's sad how Congress has successfully turned The Terrorist into a Bogeyman for adults. It's like the mental age of the American public is just 6.